User talk:Chesslover96

Cornstalk defense

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Cornstalk defense, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chesslover96

We would like to invite you to join WikiProject Chess, an attempt to build and maintain Chess-related articles on Wikipedia. To join, simply add your name to the Participants section of WikiProject Chess.

ChessCreator (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just to say thank you. You contributed a lot of info to various chess openings recently, it's much appreciated. ChessCreator (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Corn Stalk Defense

An editor has nominated Corn Stalk Defense, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corn Stalk Defense and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:Thank you

Hi Eric, I'm quite new also, although been spending to much time checking in recently.

For the unorthodox opening what is required is two 'reliable sources', reliable sources so it seems are printed books. This creates a problem for me as I don't have any books on early openings. I have however searched the internet and found some pages of Eric Schiller's Unorthodox chess book. Also on wikipedia they have the idea about No Original Research, so ultimately for a good article every item should have a source, otherwise some one else can dispute if something is true and have unsourced information removed. By the way the same doesn't apply to wikibooks so far as I can tell so if you want to add your knowledge then Opening theory in chess is a place to add it.
Sometimes you make edits and place a space or two at the front of the sentence, spaces at the beginning for some reason causes wikipedia to place it inside a dotted box, if you get this happen just remove the space or spaces from the beginning and the box disappears.
to send a message to anyone, add an edit there talk page, like I'm doing here on your talk page. You can find a members talk page by clicking the word talk next to there name. ChessCreator (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boungcloud Attack

Isn't this a bit pointless? I'm all for having 1st moves covered, but this one I find bizarre, so far as I can tell it has no significance and as the article says is about a specific community, something like an in joke. Such pages don't in my view help establish the other unusual first moves, because it can look like the other page are created as a joke where this Boungcloud Attack page can be used to highlight a point. ChessCreator (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Could you help me fix it?" - What is it that requires fixing? ChessCreator (talk) 16:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the criteria for such things are 'Substantive coverage in reliable sources' or more clearly 'two reliable sources', when a 'reliable sources' would be from a publisher(book or online) or an expert website (like FIDE, ECO or ICCF official sites) with two sources it can be said to be notable. In this case I don't know of one reliable source, although I could be wrong. Without two reliable source I'd be in favour of deleting or merging it with something else. ChessCreator (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boldface

Would be happy to work on boldface of opening names, although at the moment I don't understand what' required. Left reply here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess ChessCreator (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still don't understand what 'boldface' is. ChessCreator (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you've done in the Sicilian Defence and it makes sense now. ChessCreator (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Sir Ralf of Bracebridge

I have nominated Sir Ralf of Bracebridge, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sir Ralf of Bracebridge. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Horrorshowj (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Work in progress

Hello, Chesslover96 … I found an old, unpublished paper that I wrote about Necessity and Sufficiency in Computer Chess Algorithms while at Xerox in 1980 … I scanned it with OCR software, and have been cleaning it up … I'd appreciate some feedback from Some Other Editor while I try to bring it up-to-date to submit for publication. :-)

Happy Editing! — 138.88.91.205 (talk · contribs) _{18:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

You started on Wikipedia just a couple of years after I did. I've watched it change. Along the way I became an administrator. It's a different place than it was 15 years ago. The bureaucracy has grown, and there are more policies and guidelines, but unavoidable as the project expands. The community is less tolerant of unreliable sources and promotionalism, and more sensitive to verification, but those are good things.

Drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions. You asked about hiding past edits; I can do that too, although an Oversighter can hide more than a regular admin. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks Anachronist. A cursory examination of Wikipedia does indeed suggest it has changed. Perhaps for the better, in some respects, perhaps for the worse in others. I appreciate you reaching out and re-welcoming me. I don't have a lot of time to contribute here, but I'll get back into things as time allows. Chesslover96 (talk) 22:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]